Did Obama Kill Elizabeth Warren's Chances at a Permanent Job?

In a move that's confusing progressives, President Obama has appointed
Elizabeth Warren to oversee the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB). Warren, a Harvard law professor, has long been
the preferred choice of liberals to head the bureau as its permanent
director. However, Warren would have faced a contentious confirmation
hearing in the Senate. This appointment allows the administration to
skirt the confirmation process while keeping Warren involved in the
agency. It also doesn't preclude her from being nominated as bureau chief
later on--though some contest that point. What was the administration's
logic behind this move?

Warren Wanted This, writes Mike Allen
at Politico: "She has been a media darling as chair of the
Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors TARP, and was a favorite
to head the new consumer agency. But she and the White House cooked up
this interim role after she did some homework on the Hill and discovered
the confirmation fight would be ugly, and perhaps futile. The
formidable Warren will continue to push for the broadest powers she can
get, but will inevitably be circumscribed once a director is confirmed."

Not Great News for Progressives, writes Ezra Klein
at The Washington Post: "The downside is that piqued Republicans are
even less likely to support her in a future Senate battle, meaning this
temporary appointment might come at the cost of a permanent position.
And won't potential employees be reticent to join the agency when they
don't really know who their actual boss will be?"

Actually It Is, write Ryan Grim and Shahien Nasiripour
at The Huffington Post: "The move allows her to act as an interim head
of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency
immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination.
Warren could serve until Obama nominates a permanent director -- a
nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama could also
nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect
that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar
with the White House deliberations."

Don't Do This, Mr. President, urges Senator Bob Corker
(R-Tenn), in a letter to President Obama: "The individual who heads
this bureau will be able to make rules, with ultimately no checks and
balances, that could have broad reaching implications for the U.S.
economy as it relates to accessing credit, social justice and the safety
and soundness of the U.S. banking system. The job is
disproportionately reliant on the decisions of one individual with
access to large sums of taxpayer monies to carry out the agency agenda.
Taxpayers deserve better stewardship in the determination of who will
take on this responsibility."

This Is Weak, writes Andrew Leonard
at Salon: "Neither Obama's supporters nor opponents will be satisfied
with this move -- just as neither were happy with the healthcare bill or
bank reform. It feels weak. If Obama was hoping to spur enthusiasm
among the Democratic base that would get voters to the polls, this is
not the way to do it. Instead of inspiring cheers, this news is sure to
hit with a dull thud." Matthew Yglesias agrees, tweeting "Obama showing real innovation in developing odd, satisfying to nobody compromises."

This Is Devastating, writes Zach Carter
at Campaign for America's Future: "It's tremendously disappointing to
liberals and conservatives alike-- and uplifting for the CEOs of Wall
Street's biggest banks. Everybody knows Warren is the right person for
the job if Obama actually cares about protecting consumers. Appointing
anybody else is a serious blow to the Wall Street reform bill-- the CFPB
is the best thing about the legislation, and if Obama doesn't intend to
appoint the best candidate to the head the new agency, it says
something very unpleasant about his motivations regarding the bill."

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.